Curriculum frameworks : who (or what) is framing whom?

Various theorists and educators over the years have produced their preferred knowledge groupings or frameworks. Most well-known ones include those produced by Hirst (1974) and Phenix (1964).

Curriculum frameworks were advocated by many educators in the 1990s as an important springboard and focus for teachers in terms of curriculum planning. It was argued that they would be a stimulus for evoking creative ideas and activities. Yet, they are also a major tool for control and direction.

The use of curriculum frameworks were very evident in Australia in April 1991 when eight learning areas were created by the Australian Education Council (AEC) and planned for use in all states and territories. These eight learning areas, or key learning areas (KLA's) have largely endured in all states and territories even though the ambitious plans for national statements and profiles did not survive.

This paper provides a stock-take on the current uses, benefits and problems in using KLA's as curriculum frameworks in Australia. There are many different contextual factors operating, which affect their use and effectiveness. Disjunctions can occur between major players at federal and state levels which provide different and often conflicting points of leverage. It is timely to analyse their impact on curriculum planning and implementation in Australia.